Friday, July 23, 2010

BarBri = Ripoff

BarBri's "most up-to-date materials" for Utah have been awful and useless. For example, 16 years ago in American Vending, Utah's courts "extinguished the doctrine of de facto corporations." See if that's in your Utah materials. What's worse, it appears that what information is there hasn't been reviewed for 5 or 6 years. It's lame that BarBri didn't notice that Utah's probate code was changed this summer. But 6 years out-of date? That's a ripoff.

A.BarBri botches Utah's capital punishment law:

If the court imposes the judgment of death, the defendant is entitled to select, at the time of sentencing, either a firing squad or a lethal injection as the method of execution; however, if no selection is made, the judgment of death must be by lethal injection. [§77-18-5.5]

That version of the statute was superseded in 2004. Ever since it was Amended by Chapter 51, in 2004, the statute has provided that "lethal intravenous injection" has been the only "option" offered with a death sentence. This mistake is found under the subsection "UTAH CRIMINAL PROCEDURE," pg. 10-11.

Utah has only adopted part of Rule 1.17 relating to the sale of a law practice. Utah requires only provision iii) that seller’s clients be notified in writing of the sale, of any change in fee arrangements, the client’s right to retain other counsel or take possession of their file and that their consent to the sale is presumed if there is no objection or response in 90 days.

In reality, Utah’s rule includes all 4 parts of model rule 1.17, and has since a 2005 amendment. Utah’s rule specifically prohibits any increase in fees in connection with the sale of a law practice. This mistake is under the subsection “UTAH PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY," Pg 2.

C.BarBri bungles the grounds for modifying a custody decree in Utah:

The court may order, modify, or terminate joint legal or physical custody if:a. the circumstances of the child or one or both of the parents have materially and substantially changed; orb. a modification would be an improvement for and in the best interest of the child. [§30-10.4(1).]

In reality, there is only one test. § 30-10.4 provides an “and” where BarBri says “or.” The code’s conjunctive test is misrepresented as two alternative tests. This has been true at least since the 2007 amendments. This mistake is in the subsection “UTAH FAMILY LAW” pg. 15.

D.BarBri butchers the statute of limitations for collecting back child support. In the Essay Approach Outline for Utah civil procedure, BarBri pulls this out of its hat as part of a list of SOL's:

8 years- child support

Um, actually, the SOL isn't even a fixed number of years at all. I don't know where they got 8 years, but the statute gives until the last child turns 18 plus 4 years.As far as I can tell, it's been that way for years and years and years.ConclusionRipoff.